#george telegraph course fees | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

scapegrace74-blog · 4 years

Text

Saorsa, Chapter 26

A/N Here is the next installment of Saorsa. Jamie demonstrates his usefulness, in more ways than one. Claire finally acknowledges what we knew all along.

Rather than link to all previously posted chapters, I’ll just direct those of you wanting to catch up on your Saorsa-reading to my AO3 page, where the fic is posted in its entirety.

Thank you to each of you liking and reblogging! It does my little fanfic writer’s heart good.

Claire woke to the disorienting sensation of sea foam tickling up her legs. Or perhaps it was champagne bubbles. A sigh slipped from her lips into the still air of their bedchamber, still fragrant with last night’s lovemaking.

For a couple with precious little experience between them when they married, she and Jamie were proving very adept disciples in the arts of seduction and pleasure. A frantic grappling in the hayloft the previous week had caused Jamie to remark that “the wanting of ye ne’er stops” and she had to agree. Whatever it was between them, it was not diminishing with time. Quite the reverse, actually.

Claire reached a drowsy hand beneath the sheets and into a mess of long curls that somehow did nothing to diminish their owner’s masculinity. With this acknowledgement that she was awake, his mouth latched onto the tender skin of her inner thigh, causing her to gasp and flinch away. A heavy forearm landed low across her hips, signaling in no uncertain terms that her job was lie still and accept the bliss he was offering. Her shoulders flopped to the mattress in easy surrender.

In their limited marital relations, Frank had never performed this act for her. It was only through her exposure to the poetry of D.H. Lawrence that she knew of its existence. She never would have expected Jamie to be such an ardent practitioner, but he was. Oh Lord, he was.

Releasing all self-consciousness, she arched wantonly towards the moist heat of her husband’s breath, hovering just out of reach. His chuckle was deep and lay in the no man’s land between taunting and pained. Deciding to end both of their suffering, she hooked her thigh over his bare shoulder and pulled down. Mere minutes later, she was crying out to heaven and all mere mortals here on Earth, but especially to the supplicant between her legs who was painting a filigree paradise with his tongue.

She hadn’t expected to cherish her husband. The words sounded awful, even in the privacy of her thoughts. Still, she had to admit to herself that Jamie’s estimable qualities (besides being a skilled master of the estate and of increasingly sound body) were the last thing on her mind when she accepted his awkward Hogmanay proposal. She was pregnant and alone, and for once she did not feel equipped to deal with the speed of change that upended her life like Hitler’s Wehrmacht advancing across the Low Countries. Jamie offered his support, a literal key to salvation dangling in front of her, and she snatched at it greedily.

That the man offering this deliverance was honourable was without question. He’d also shown himself to be resolute, honest, selfless and perceptive. While she prided herself on her medical detachment, she hadn’t missed the beautiful copper waves of his hair, his elegant hands, the carnal promise of his broad shoulders and square hips, nor eyes the colour of blueberry dust. She was his nurse first by necessity, but she never stopped being a woman who loved beauty no matter where she found it.

These traits were all admirable, but they did not guarantee her friendship, affection… lust. It was the little things that won her over. How from the beginning, he rose from his chair each time she entered a room, even when the pain it caused him was etched on his handsome, gaunt face. How he would tease her out of her fouler moods, but scowl over the silliest trivialities. How he was easy and deferential with everyone from Murtagh to Laoghaire, the young scullery maid who gazed after him with limpid, adoring eyes. How he inquired after the baby’s health every day, even though her very English child would inherit his very Scottish birthright. How he never failed to make her laugh. Never let his eyes stray from her face as she tried to put words to the maelstrom of worries swirling through her. Never discounted her worth on the basis of her sex.

Their honeymoon to Skye marked the true beginning of their journey as man and wife, but try as she might, she couldn’t place her finger on the moment when she’d started to love him.

“When do ye expect this… Sandpiper…”

“Sandringham,” she correct for the second time in as many minutes.

“Somesuch. When do ye expect him tae visit Lallybroch?” Jamie was polishing his leather boots with linseed, so his face was downturned, but she could still make out the disdainful twist to his lips as they discussed the English duke who effectively controlled their destiny as the owners of Lallybroch.

“Last year it was early May. I plan to write to request that he come earlier, given that the babe is due to make its grand debut by the middle of May. But he can’t come too soon, or the wool won’t be ready.”

Jamie stopped polishing and tried to take in the barrage of information Claire had just released with a single breath.

“Sassenach, please tell me ye dinna plan tae write tae an English laird… a duke, no less… who holds the future of Lallybroch in his bejewelled hands, and…. nah. Ne’ermind. Of course ye do.”

“It’s not like that, Jamie. Yes, he’s a duke, but it’s a ceremonial title only these days. He doesn’t have any real power. It’s not as though he’s going to ring up King George and complain about his unruly Highlander tenants.”

He wanted to retort that intercessions of exactly that sort were what brought Lallybroch into the control of the Duke’s ancestor, but he had more pressing matters to address.

“And what do ye mean, the wool willna be ready? What has the duke tae do with our sheering season?”

Giving up on his boots entirely, he rose and joined Claire at the dining table, where she had a week-old newspaper open in front of her.

“Instead of paying the customary fee in cash, in the spring it’s paid in wool. It simplifies things greatly, and the Duke arranges for the transport of the wool to a Yorkshire mill where it’s used to make blankets for the British army. Everyone benefits.”

“Aye, ‘specially the duke,” Jamie commented sardonically.

“What do you mean?”

“Weel, this fee ye pay twa times a year. It’s a hundred pounds, aye?”

“That’s right.”

“And how many bales of wool did ye hand o’er tae the duke last May?”

“Eleven. Jamie, what are you thinking?”

“Wool is rationed a’cause o’ the war, aye? And the army buys it at a fixed rate…” His fingers were tapping madly on the wooden table top, as though he was sending a telegraph message. She knew this tic. It meant he was thinking hard about something important.

“What if… Sassenach, what if we sold the wool ourselves? And paid the duke in sterling when he arrives in May.”

His eyes were blue beacons of excitement, and she hated to snuff them with practical details.

“But Jamie, that would take an enormous amount of work. The sheering would need to be complete by mid-April at the latest. Then you’d need to transport the bales of wool to the nearest mill that buys on behalf of the military – probably in the Lowlands. I don’t even know! And still be back in time for the duke’s visit. It’s a brilliant idea, but…”

“Six ‘undred pounds,” he interrupted.

“What?”

“Six ‘undred pounds, minus the cost of transport. We’d give one hundred tae the duke, an’ still be almost five ‘undred pounds tae the better. Christ, Claire. Think of the good tha’ money would do. For the bairn. And for Lallybroch. We could rebuild the grist mill. Improve the stables. Buy more stock.”

She didn’t disagree that it was a sound plan. While modern conveniences left him floundering, Jamie’s business acumen was above reproach. She hated the idea of him venturing so far away while she stayed behind and incubated a child, however. From the moment he arrived the previous September, they’d never been apart for longer than a day.

The look in his eyes countermanded all her misgivings. He needed to do this. To be a provider to his new family and to find a place for himself in his new world.

She smiled and grabbed his fingers where they still danced over the coarse-grained wood. “It sounds wonderful. Just make sure you’re back in time to greet the new laird or lady, when they arrive.”

#my writing #outlander

24 notes · View notes

paulflynnunrevised · 7 years

Text

Conduct of Parliament

Submission I made on the Parliamentary code.

What should the purpose of the code be? Parliament’s prime task since the expenses scandal is to restore the public’s trust in politicians and politics. We are failing. Parliamentarians are no longer trusted by the public to police our own affairs. This has been demonstrated with harmful headlines exposing sex, drugs, fraud and expenses scandals where the House has apparently made lenient judgements. Standards Committees of both houses frequently adjudicate in favour of those accused. The perpetrators of alleged offences are more often than not found to have committed no breach of the Code of Conduct by the Commons authorities. 25 The Commissioner on Standards has an unenviable role of applying the MP’s code of standards to their actions in the event of a complaint.

Continuing instances of behaviour bringing Parliament into disrepute raise questions on the effectiveness of the standards system and the Commissioner’s role. Recent results suggest either the rules or their interpretation are inadequate. A rule cannot be breached if there is no rule, no matter how untoward the action. On occasions where a breach is deemed to have been committed consequences are ineffective. A breach of conduct is frequently resolved by an apology for a minor breach or a referral to the Committee on Standards for a more serious one. There is now widespread public and press perception that parliamentarians are closing ranks in defence of errant colleagues.

Case Studies In July 2012 I made a complaint to the Standards Commissioner about Lord Blencathra’s lucrative contract with the Cayman Islands. Following his appointment as Director of the Cayman Islands UK, in promotion of his services for hire, Lord Blencathra touted his lobbying skills at a press conference. His activities included lobbying George Osborne to lower air passenger transport taxes on the Caymans and facilitating an all-expenses-paid trip to the Caymans for three senior MPs. Following my complaint, the Lords Standards Commissioner decided to hold an investigation to decide if a breach of the Code of Conduct had occurred. Lord Blencathra was found not to have breached the Code of Conduct in his £12,000 a month role. He claimed to have not lobbied Parliament but admitted freely that he was lobbying Ministers and Government. This distinction was surprisingly accepted as permissible at the time. It was also decided that despite being hired for his access to legislators, he had not lobbied in his capacity as a peer but as a private citizen. As such no action was taken. In 2014 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism published an employment contract between The Cayman Islands and Lord Blencathra, exposing clauses expressly setting out how he would work for the tax haven. This contract was not made known to the Privileges and Standards Committee for its 2012 investigation. The contract’s unexplained existence prompted a new investigation at my request. Blencathra agreed to “Promote the Cayman Islands’ interests in the UK and Europe by liaising with and making representations to UK ministers, the FCO, members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords.”

Conveniently the peer’s defence has evolved periodically to suit the accusations laid against him. Initially he denied having a lobbying aspect to his role, before omitting any awareness of 26 an employment contract when under investigation. Eventually he settled on having not had any intention of fulfilling the lobbying clauses within the contract he later remembered signing. The investigators would not take a hard line against one of their fellow peers. The perception of Parliamentarians for hire was legitimised by the Lord’s Standards Commissioner who refused to take a tough stance on the matter. It was accepted that although he received £12,000 a month for services that he was contractually obliged to perform, Lord Blencathra did not intend to carry out those services that would have breached the Lords Code of Conduct. A brief apology from Lord Blencathra sufficed to bring an end to the affair. This judgement I believe was excessively generous and did not match the seriousness of the offence.

Lord Sewel had the leading role in overseeing the conduct of peers. He held the position of Chairman of the Privileges and Conduct Committee that considered Lord Blencathra’s case. Following his own fall from grace Lord Sewell contrived his own exoneration. Absolution by his resignation. Allowing Parliamentarians to escape judgement on their conduct by resignation is not a privilege available to non-parliamentarians. This case demonstrated an unacceptable level of permissiveness by peers for one of their own. There have been no public signs of penitence from the Upper House for these events.

Parliament was later brought into disrepute again by Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind. The pair were recorded discussing possible lobbying work with reporters posing as staff of a fake Chinese firm. Sir Malcolm was said to have claimed that he could arrange “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world because of his status, while Mr Straw boasted of operating “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year. The admission made by Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind appear to be clear breaches of the code which states: 12. The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is contrary to the law of Parliament.[3] 13. Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. They shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.[4] 14. Information which Members receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties should be used only in connection with those duties. Such information must never be used for the purpose of financial gain. 27 Incredibly Parliament’s standards commissioner said neither had broken Commons rules. Many of us who watched the programmes were surprised at this view.

The two former MPs seemed to have to have made statements in flagrant breaches of the above codes in their pasts and indicated willingness to disregard the rules in future. The commissioner in question Kathryn Hudson conceded there had been “errors of judgement” from Sir Malcolm while Mr Straw had breached the code of conduct “by a minor misuse of parliamentary resources”. Not for the first time the messenger was attacked. The undercover sting, carried out by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph was criticised. The report complained that if they “had accurately reported what was said by the two members in their interviews, and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the lives of two individuals and those around them, and to the reputation of the House.” Both were referred to the Parliamentary Standards Committee. Its chairman stated: “By selection and omission the coverage distorted the truth and misled the public as to what had actually taken place.” The two were treated leniently. A subsequent detailed investigation by the independent Ofcom exonerated Channel Four from accusations that they had unfairly edited and presented the recorded interviews.

We see similar leniency in the case of former Conservative MP Tim Yeo. Mr Yeo lost his libel case against The Sunday Times over a “cash for advocacy” claim. In 2013 the newspaper alleged he breached parliamentary codes of conduct by telling undercover reporters he could promote business concerns in return for cash. It suggested Mr Yeo would approach ministers for a daily fee of £7,000 on behalf of a solar energy company with interests in the Far East. Incredibly MPs on the Standards Committee absolved Mr Yeo of any guilt arising from allegations that he abused his position as chairman of the Commons energy committee to further the interests of his business contacts. The Committee stated that following a lengthy investigation Mr Yeo had not breached any rules, and that the only misrepresentation had been committed by reporters of the Sunday Times who had posed as potential clients in the sting operation. They reserved their strongest criticism for the newspaper, saying: “We note the severe damage which is done to public trust by journalism which rests on a basis of subterfuge, misrepresentation and selective quotation.” Again, MPs closed ranks and fired a fusillade at the messengers. Again Parliament looked after its own. A committee of MPs found the actions of a journalistic sting against a colleague deplorable even though facts of great public interest had been unearthed. Another conclusion could be that the media was performing a vital function in exposing potentially corrupt parliamentarians. If these three MPs had not breached the rules, the rules appear to be deficient and in need of being rewritten. However it appears that their conduct did breach the existing code. The problem may be one of both interpretation and implementation.

28 It is clear that both Houses have failed in their duty to self-scrutinise to the satisfaction of public opinion. The committees installed for disciplinary actions appear to act incestuously, influenced by ministers, whips and the pressures of the closed community of Westminster to guard its sorry reputation for probity. Malcolm Rifkind was a member of the board that appointed Kathryn Hudson the commissioner who was later to find in his favour. This may have had no effect of any decisions made, but it does invite suspicions of possible bias. Judgements by independent bodies carry weight and credibility. Internal Commons Committees have sullied their credibility by apparently whitewashing serious charges. They now lack legitimacy. They do not deserve the trust to investigate fairly and reach just conclusions. This is sadly not a reflection of the high moral standards and integrity of the Members of the House who are tainted by perceptions of corruption/

The task of judgement and condemnation passes to public opinion, spurred on by publications such as the Telegraph and the Mail. This is not a fair method of scrutiny. The death of a former MP David Taylor was in my opinion hastened by his brutal treatment from the Telegraph. Many others have been culpable of minor infractions, or worse innocent mistakes. They have suffered the rough justice of journalists and been spuriously hung out to dry by tabloids in the pursuit of circulation delivering scandals.

To restore confidence in judgements on parliamentarians conduct, I believe we should move to bodies made up of trusted individuals who are not parliamentarians. Ideally an individual of the calibre of High Court Judge should lead it. That could be a valuable step in restoring trust. Standards in Parliament Outwith the role of the Commissioner for Standards, a web of procedure and committees exists with similar purpose. The system does not work. Procedures are ritualistic at best. Committees wield no power and appointments are rife with conflicts of interest. Lord Bew’s Committee on Standards in Public Life exists to advise the Prime Minister on the ethical standards of public life and make recommendations for improving the present system. Decisions on membership appointment are taken at a Ministerial leve;.

In 2015 a former MP, who was better qualified to adjudicate on standards than any other former MP, applied for membership of the Committee. There was a shortlist of 3. He was rejected by a Ministerial decision. This reinforces the perception of a self-serving incestuous system of patronage and rough justice. Ministers must uphold the standards contained within the Ministerial Code of Conduct. An Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests conducts investigations on perceived breaches. But only at the request of the Prime Minister.

Jeremy Hunt caused a controversy during the BSKYB takeover with allegations that he failed to act impartially as a Minister. Cameron refused to allow an investigation by the Independent Advisor. In 2014 Theresa May was reported to have leaked Ministerial correspondence regarding Islamic extremism in Birmingham schools. Despite the clear breach of the Code of Conduct, no referral was made or investigation sought.

Liam Fox resigned from his post as Defence Secretary. Again absolution by resignation. The public have no knowledge of what breach of the rules he committed, He is re-building his parliamentary career without public knowledge of why he resigned. This is a clear example where the Independent Adviser should have investigated and reported. Transparency of the nature of ministers’ conduct is vital in assessing his suitability for future posts. Calls for review of the Independent Advisor’s role have been ignored. Now we have lurched into the next Ministerial breach. The recent Kids Company fiasco revealed shortcomings from Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock who should certainly be referred for investigation for ignoring Civil Service advice and wasting £3 million of taxpayers’ money. Yet the case involves the charity that epitomised the Big Society.

The Prime Minister is politically committed to the Big Society concept that has been discredited by the Kids Company scandal. We haven’t restored public confidence in MPs. We cannot hope to until extensive rules are in place with an independent overseer who can refer alleged Ministerial Mis-conduct to the Adviser. The oath The Rules of Duties of Members states V 4. By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law. This is a problem for MPs with republican views. Recent attempts to introduce non-royal alternatives have been lost by small majorities 137 to 151 in 1998 and 129 and 148 in 2000. These results suggest that at least a fifth of MPs wish to have an alternative. Many new forms of words have been suggested. Kevin McNamara’s bill of 1998 proposed a choice including: “I do solemnly Declare and Affirm that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here”. Opinion polls claim that support of Republicanism in the population varies from 25% to 35% of the population. The present rules force MPs into making statements that they do not believe in order to take their seats. There are now precedents for MPs to attaching their own conditions to the official wording. Dennis Skinner in 1992 declared his loyalty to an ‘income tax-paying monarch’. Tony Benn and others prefixed their oaths with the words ‘As a convinced 30 republican ... ’. Other new members have innovated their own conditions. This is not satisfactory in that the first act of new MPs is to tell an untruth or use a form of words that seeks to undermine part of the code of conduct. That does not encourage obedience to other rules. A Republican alternative should be allowed. Acoba The revolving door from high public office to private company sinecure is spinning as freely as ever. At least 25 former ministers from David Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m between them. Five former members of the prime minister's cabinet are among dozens of ex-coalition ministers earning up to £600 an hour in the sectors they used to regulate. Most have plum parttime roles as directors, advisers or board chairmen. The job of the Commons watchdog, the

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), is to restrict the abuse of former ministers, civil servants and generals by selling their insider knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. But it is not a watchdog; it’s a fawning pussycat without teeth or claws. Informed born-again lobbyists are placed into influential commercial positions where they are motivated by private greed—not the public's good. The tentacles of this permissive system penetrate deeply and threaten the integrity of public life. The roles of top civil servants, generals or government ministers were traditionally the pinnacles of careers. Now they are often judged as stepping-stones on the climb to retirement riches.

When in office, decisions involving billions may be subtly influenced by a nod or a wink in favour of the prospect of a lucrative job in retirement and a hacienda in Spain. All former ministers are obliged to seek the committee’s advice if they take on any job within two years of leaving office. And cabinet ministers are expected to wait a minimum of three months before taking private work. The work of Acoba is justly mocked. Its previous chair, Lord Lang, was interviewed by the Dispatches sting team that forced transport secretary Stephen Byers, former health secretary Patricia Hewitt and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon into suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2010 for allegedly “bringing it into disrepute”. Lang did not commit himself to working for the bogus job offered but he sent his CV to the Dispatches team for further consideration. New chair, Tory peer Angela Browning was cross-examined by the Public Administration Committee at a ludicrous “retrospective pre-appointment” hearing confirmation of her role. She was a minister in the Home Office until 2011 and is now paid between £300 and £800 a day for occasional work for a political consultancy firm that trains people in the health industry on topics such as “how to influence the political agenda”. 31 Nearly all other members of her committee are drawn from the great and the good that regard £60,000 for a part-time retirement job as normal entitlement for themselves and for their chums. Acoba has never banned a minister from taking a job and its recommendations on restricting lobbying are not binding. They have no powers to enforce them. Under the present regime of permissiveness Acoba performs no useful function. It is a useless ornament on the body politic. Former holders of high office are free to prostitute their contacts and knowledge to the highest bidder. It should be replaced with an independent body with powers to enforce its decisions.

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day http://ift.tt/2iIXDoj (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

#imports

4 notes · View notes

iranstew41-blog · 5 years

Text

Response to the Lancet paper

3rd February 2019

A number of people have asked for my views on the Lancet Paper ‘Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomized controlled trials.’

It was reported in various major newspapers.

The Times reported the study thus: “Everyone over the age of 75 should be considered for cholesterol-lowering statins, experts have urged, after an analysis found up to 8,000 lives a year could be saved.”1

The Telegraph had this to say. “Researchers said up to 8,000 deaths a year could be prevented if GPs simply prescribed drugs costing pennies a day.”

This comes hot on the heels of a concerted effort to silence statin critics around the world by a coalition of ‘experts. I suspect the coordinated timing is more than a coincidence.

‘The editors of more than two dozen cardiology-related scientific journals around the world published an editorial Monday to “sound the alarm that human lives are at stake” because of medical misinformation.

These physicians describe regularly encountering patients hesitant to take potentially lifesaving medications or adhere to other prescribed treatments because of something they read online. Or heard from friends. Or saw on television.

“There is a flood of bad information on the internet and social media that is hurting human beings,” said Dr. Joseph Hill, the architect of the essay and editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association journal Circulation. “It’s not just an annoyance, this actually puts people in harm’s way.”

The primary example illustrated in the editorial is the use of statins, a cholesterol-lowering medicine that can reduce heart attack and stroke risk in certain people. But doctors say too many of their patients shun taking statins because of bad information they picked up – often from politicians, celebrities and others who lack medical expertise.’2

Essentially, they feel that certain issues, such as prescribing statins, are so vitally important that critics should be silenced. Perhaps all these editors should try reading this:

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

Yes, the US founding fathers knew the first thing tyrannies always wish to do is remove freedom of speech. From that, all else follows. If they don’t get that message, they should all be forced to read 1984 by George Orwell.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

Getting back to the Lancet paper. What do I think of it? The first thing to note is ‘who done it.’ Well, of course, it was the Cholesterol Treatment Triallists Collaboration (CTT) from Oxford. Run by Professor Sir Rory Collins and Professor Colin Baigent. They do almost all these meta-analyses on statins, because they hold all the data. So, no-one else can really do them.

The CTT is in this hallowed position because they made a pact with the dev… sorry … they made a pact with the pharmaceutical industry to take hold of all the data on statins from all the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture statins and collate the data.

The CTT are very closely associated with the Oxford Clinical Trials Service Unit (CTSU) which is run by, and has employed, most of those in the CTT. Collins and Baigent etc. The CTSU is a clinical trials unit which, last time I looked, had obtained nearly £300 million in funding from the pharmaceutical industry for running clinical trials on various cholesterol lowering medications.

A fact that needs to be emphasised is that the CTT will not let anyone else see the data they hold. Including all the data on adverse events [side-effects] and serious adverse events. It is kept completely secret. I have the e-mail exchange between an Australian journalist and Professor Colin Baigent where the journalist attempts to find out if it is true that the CTT will not let anyone else see the safety data.

It starts quite well and the tone is amiable. Eventually Professor Colin Baigent clams up and refuses to answer any further questions. I have promised said journalist to keep this exchange under wraps, but almost every day I am tempted to publish it. It is toe-squirming.

Anyway, my point here is that the CTT is a horribly conflicted organisation, and has been paid, directly, or indirectly, a great deal of money by the pharmaceutical industry. Here are the conflicts of interest of those involved in writing the Lancet paper:

Conflicts of interest of statement from the Lancet paper: Commercial organisations in bold.

RO’C, EB, IF, CW, and JS have nothing to disclose. JF reports personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; and non-financial support from Amgen, Bayer, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. BM reports grants from the Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre during the conduct of the study, and grants from Merck outside the submitted work. CR report grants from the Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study; and grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. JE reports grants from the Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study, and a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. LB reports grants from the Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study. MK is an employee of a company that has received study grants and consulting fees from manufacturers of PCSK9 inhibitors and treatments for lipid disorders, outside the submitted work. AT reports personal fees from Amgen and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. PR reports a research grant from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and research grants from Novartis, Pfizer, and Kowa, outside the submitted work. CP reports a grant from Merck, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. EL reports grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, and Merck, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. WK reports grants and non-financial support from Roche, Beckmann, Singulex, and Abbott, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, The Medicines Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Dalcor, Sanofi, Berlin-Chemie, Kowa, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. AG reports personal fees from Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Arisaph Pharmaceuticals, DuPont, Esperion Therapeutics, Kowa, Merck, Roche, Vatera Capital, ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Weill Cornell Medicine, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. SY reports a grant from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. RC reports support from the Nuffield Department of Population Health, during the conduct of the study; grants from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Merck, National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work; personal fees from the British Heart Foundation and UK Biobank, outside the submitted work; other support from Pfizer to the Nuffield Department of Population Health (prize for independent research); and a patent for a statin-related myopathy genetic test licensed to University of Oxford from Boston Heart Diagnostics (RC has waived any personal reward). CB reports grants from the Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, during the conduct of the study; and grants from Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. AK reports grants from Abbott and Mylan, outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Mylan, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. LB reports grants from UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation during the conduct of the study.

As to the study itself. I wrote this as a ‘rapid response’ to an article Colin Baigent wrote in the BMJ about the study. It may be published, it may not be.

‘I would like to ask Colin Baigent one question on this study – at this time. He claims that the Lancet study was a meta-analysis of twenty-eight RCTs. The study was called. ‘Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials.’

However, in the Appendix to the Lancet paper it is made clear that five of the studies are a comparison of high dose vs. low dose statins. PROVE-IT, A to Z, TNT, IDEAL and SEARCH. They cannot be used to test the hypothesis that statins are beneficial in the over 75s vs. placebo, as they were not done to answer this question.

Also, in nine of the RCTs used in the meta-analysis there were 0% participants over the age of 75 at the start of the study. These were 4S, WOSCOPS, CARE, Post CABG, AFCAPS/TexCaps, ALERT, LIPID, ASPEN and MEGA.

Which means that five of the studies could not address the question of statins vs placebo in the over 75s, and nine of the studies had no participants over the age of 75, which leaves fourteen studies that would be relevant to the issue of prescribing statins in the over 75s.

My question is, why did you call this study ‘Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials.‘

Yes, they claimed to have done a meta-analysis of twenty-eight studies, yet they could only use data from fourteen to make their claims. The largest of which was the Heart Protection Study (HPS), carried out by, guess who, Rory Collins from the CTSU and CTT.

As for the actual data, it is the usual obfuscation, skirting as close to the direct lie as possible without crossing that line. I am just going to look at one issue. The main claim was that “statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen produced a 21% (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77–0·81) proportional reduction in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.”

A 21% reduction in major vascular events. That sounds terribly impressive. However, if you have read my book Doctoring Data you will know that what is most important here is not what is said, it is what is not said.

Do you see any mention of overall mortality here? No, you don’t. Which means that it did not change. Also, you may note this wording ‘reduction in major vascular events.’ What is a major vascular event? Well, it is mainly a non-fatal heart attack or a non-fatal stroke. There are other CV events, but they are much less common.

Note again, no mention of fatal CV events. If there had been a reduction here, it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops. Which means that we have no reduction in mortality and no reduction in fatal CV events. Of course, it is worth preventing non-fatal heart attacks and strokes, as these can be extremely damaging and harmful things.

However, there is something worth mentioning here that I have not really covered before. There are heart attacks and heart attacks, and strokes and strokes. A heart attack (MI) can be a crushing near-death event, leaving the heart severely weakened and liable to trigger into a fatal heart arrythmia at any time. The patient can be left a cardiac cripple.

Alternatively, a heart attack can be diagnosed by a marginal rise in cardiac enzymes with no symptoms at all, and no residual problems. Yet, both of these events, so completely different in their impact, will be listed as a non-fatal heart attack, with precisely the same weighting.

Equally, a stroke can leave the person virtually paralysed down one side, incontinent, unable to speak, eat, or move. Or, it can be a half hour strange sensation with slight facial weakness that fully resolves. Again, both these events will be listed with precisely the same weighting.

That is a problem in itself, in that these trials list events of completely different severity as being equivalent. It also leads into another problem, who is going to make the diagnosis of a mild heart attack or stroke – and on what grounds?

It will most likely be a doctor, and that doctor will have prior knowledge of whether or not the patient was on a statin – or placebo. Yes, I know, clinical trials are supposed to be double-blinded, which means that neither the participant, nor the investigator, should know who is taking the drug, or the placebo.

However, in reality, they both know full well.

I was at a meeting a while back where one of the investigators for the PCKS-9 drug Repatha was talking about the study. At one point he mentioned that a trial participant had told him that he knew he was not taking the cholesterol lowering agent. When questioned how he knew this, the participant said – because my cholesterol level is the same as it always was.

He still wanted to continue on the trial, because he thought we was doing a ‘good’ thing and helping to move medicine forward – and suchlike. I feel it may be considered churlish to point out that the only thing he was helping to move forward was the profit margins for Amgen.

The reality is that when you have a medication that has a significant effect, e.g. lowering cholesterol by 40%, this is a very difficult to thing to hide from the patient, or the doctor. They can see the figures on a computer screen in front of them. And when you are on a clinical trial, and you enter hospital, the doctors have to be told you are in a clinical trial, and what it is.

So, these double blinded studies on statins are not effectively, or even remotely, double-blinded. Which means that bias in clinical decision making is now an option. Was it a heart attack, or not? Well, they are on a statin – so probably not. Or, they are taking a placebo, so it probably is. Bias, the very thing you are trying to remove has crept straight back in the side door.

Another issue with an event is that there are many different sorts of clinical event. Death would be one – obviously. Breaking your leg another. Kidney failure would also count as one, as would a severe rash, or emergency admission to a hospital for almost any reason.

So, when a study states, as this one does ‘reduction in major vascular events.’ My mind, as it is now trained to do, thinks to itself: “ What about other events, what happened to them? Were they also reduced, did they say the same, or did they go up?”

Because if you reduce major vascular events, but other serious events go up, then you have achieved exactly and precisely nothing. This is a variation on pushing people off cliffs to stop them dying of heart attacks.

Results: ‘Pushing one hundred people prevented all trial participants from suffering a fatal heart attack. We therefore recommend pushing everyone off a cliff to reduce the incidence of heart attacks in the general population.’ A.N. Idiot et al.

Statins reduce major vascular events. [A major non-fatal vascular event could also be called as Serious Adverse Event (SAE)]. But do they reduce all serious adverse events (SEAs). If not, you are simply replacing a major vascular event with something equally nasty.

Which leads on to the next question, do we know from the statin trials if statins do reduce SAEs in total? The answer is that we do not know this, for sure, because the CTT has these data, and refuses to let anyone else see them. However, some data has not been censored by big brother. The Cochrane collaboration (before they started the sad slide to bias and corruption) looked at this issue – way back in 2003.

They got as much data as they could from the five major primary prevention statin trials at the time. Here was their conclusion on Serious Adverse Events:

‘In the two trials where serious adverse events are reported, the 1.8% absolute reduction in myocardial infarction and stroke should be reflected by a similar absolute reduction in total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction and stroke are, by definition, serious adverse events. However, this is not the case; serious adverse events are similar in the statin group, 44.2%, and the control group, 43.9%.

This is consistent with the possibility that unrecognized serious adverse events are increased by statin therapy and that the magnitude of the increase is similar to the magnitude of the reduction in cardiovascular serious adverse events in these populations. This hypothesis needs to be tested by analysis of total serious adverse event data in both past and future statin trials. Serious adverse event data is available to trial authors, drug companies and drug regulators. The other measure of overall impact, total mortality, is available in all five trials and is not reduced by statin therapy.’ 3

What does this mean in reality? Well, gathering it all together. Statins (in the over 75s) do not reduce mortality. They do not prevent fatal Mis and strokes. Whilst they reduce serious cardiac events, previously published results demonstrate they do not reduce total serious adverse events.

Which means that they are, wait for it, absolutely and completely useless.

Two plus two does equal four. Always bear that fact in mind.

1: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31942-1/fulltext

2: https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/01/28/medical-experts-sound-the-alarm-on-medical-misinformation

3: https://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter48.htm

Source: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2019/02/03/response-to-the-lancet-paper/

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

0 notes

gadgetsrevv · 5 years

Text

Transfer news LIVE at 9.30am: Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool latest plus Zaha

Keep up to date with LIVE transfer news from around Europe, as Ligue 1, Bundesliga, Serie A and La Liga clubs scramble to get their deals over the line ahead of their respective transfer deadlines.

There is still a lot of news from around the Premier League, too. Will the likes of Manchester United’s Paul Pogba, Arsenal’s Mesut Ozil and Tottenham duo Christian Eriksen and Serge Aurier remain at their clubs beyond the current deadline?

The future of Neymar meanwhile remains completely up in the air, with Spanish giants Barcelona and Real Madrid both reportedly keen on the Paris Saint-Germain striker. Follow all of the latest news below:

We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.

From 15p €0.18 $0.18 USD 0.27 a day, more exclusives, analysis and extras.

Subscribe now

Show latest update

2019-08-21T08:45:17.236Z

According to reports in Spain, Spurs have agreed to send Georges-Kevin NKoudou on a season-long loan to Besiktas.

The 24-year-old moved to Spurs from Marseille in 2016 but has failed to win a place in the north London club’s first-team, with loan spells at Burnley and Monaco.

2019-08-21T08:42:05.310Z

Cristiano Ronaldo admits he could retire next year despite three more years left on his Juventus contract.

At 34 years old, Ronaldo admits the end is coming as he bids to add an extra layer to his legacy in Turin.

The ultimate goal with Juventus remains the Champions League, with a quarter-final exit at the hands of Ajax last year, and Ronaldo concedes this could be his final chance to win it.

“I don’t think about that,” Ronaldo told TVI.

“Maybe I can finish my career next year… but I can also play up to 40 or 41.

2019-08-21T08:24:16.040Z

Juventus are scouring Lyon forward Moussa Dembele, according to reports.

L’Equipe have claimedthat Juve representatives watched the 23-year-old score twice in Lyon’s 6-0 win over Angers on Friday.

The Frenchman has been a big success ever since he moved to the Ligue 1 side from Celtic, scoring 20 goals in all competitions last season.

2019-08-21T08:12:13.246Z

Meanwhile, Sport believe Barcelona have valued Neymar at €160m.

That’s €60m less than his price two years ago, which is unlikely to satisfy the French club.

They are waiting for Real Madrid’s move, the report adds.

2019-08-21T08:10:07.340Z

Mundo Deportivo claim Barcelona want to sign Neymar on a two-year loan with an obligation to buy.

It remains unclear whether PSG would be open to structuring a deal in such a way.

Barcelona appear to be without funds to make a permanent purchase right now after loaning Philippe Coutinho to Bayern.

If Neymar is open to Real Madrid, then Barcelona could risk losing their former player to their fiercest rivals.

2019-08-21T07:59:28.560Z

Ajax forward Kasper Dolberg is poised to join Ligue 1 outfit Nice, according to L’Equipe.

The 21-year-old is poised to sign a five-year deal at the Allianz Riviera, in a transfer worth slightly over £20m.

Dolberg made 38 appearances in all competitions for Ajax last season, scoring 12 goals.

2019-08-21T07:46:21.860Z

Christian Pulisic rejected a move to Manchester United because of his father’s dislike for Jose Mourinho, according to the Chelsea star’s former coach.

The 20-year-old moved to the Blues in a £58m deal in January before heading back to Borussia Dortmund on a six-month loan.

The United States international could have moved to the Premier League sooner but for Mourinho being in charge at Old Trafford.

“I’m a Chelsea fan, I grew up in London supporting them. When I was in Dortmund last year, I told him that he had to come,” Robin Walker, who coached Pulisic early in his development at non-League side Brackley Town, told the Telegraph.

“He wouldn’t go to Manchester United because of Jose Mourinho. His father couldn’t stand Mourinho, because he didn’t promote young players.

“It was at that point I asked: “What about London? That’s where it’s at.

“I was trying to sell the city. His agent agreed, saying: “When you make these decisions, it’s all about investment and property.” I was delighted that he did sign.”

2019-08-21T07:37:35.796Z

PSG are returning for Gianluigi Donnarumma.

The AC Milan goalkeeper has been a long-term target and now the French club could step up their interest.

Milan are demanding €55m (£50m) for their No 1, claim La Repubblica.

2019-08-21T07:30:45.870Z

22-year-old Spanish left-back Alberto Redondo has been linked with a move to Birmingham after Getafe released him at the end of last season, the Birmingham Mail reports while citing Footmercato.

2019-08-21T07:21:06.583Z

England winger Jadon Sancho’s wages have been doubled to £80,000 per week by Borussia Dortmund as the Bundesliga side try to fend off Manchester United’s interest, Germany’s Bild says.

The 19-year-old youth player with Watford and Manchester City signed with Dortmund in 2017 and had rebuffed Ole Gunnar Solskjaer because the Red Devils could not offer him Champions League football this season.

2019-08-21T07:09:08.070Z

The Manchester Evening News, citing Turkish media outlet A Spor, says Fenerbahce are interested in signing 29-year-old Manchester United defender Marcos Rojo.

A Spor says the Turkish Super Lig team are “closing in” on a loan deal for the Argentina international, who was blocked from moving to Everton because the Toffees are an outside bet to finish above the Red Devils in the Premier League.

2019-08-21T07:05:43.520Z

Southampton midfielder Mario Lemina, 25, is heading to Monaco on a season-long loan with an option for the Ligue 1 outfit to later buy him, according to Radio Monte Carlo.

The Gabonese player signed for Saints for a club-record fee of £15.4million two years ago from Juventus. Monaco represents a homecoming of sorts for Lemina who got his start in France at Lorient before moving to Marseille.

2019-08-21T06:59:01.713Z

Mohamed Salah insists he is content at Liverpool and not looking to leave despite Gary Neville tipping him to leave within the next 12 months.

The Egyptian forward has been a revelation since joining from Roma in 2017, winning the Premier League golden boot two years running.

His time at Anfield peaked last season with the Reds’ winning the Champions League, but his journey is only just getting started it seems, despite former Manchester United defender Neville tipping him to move on in the next 12 months.

“I’m happy at Liverpool,” Salah told CNN. “I’m happy in the city.

“I love the fans and they love me. I’m happy at the club.”

2019-08-21T06:51:13.096Z

Josh Kroenke has said his family will not consider selling Arsenal despite fan pressure.

“I would say that if you’re reacting and doing club record signings based on public opinion, you’re not going to go very far as a club,” he added. “We weren’t reactive this summer, we were actually proactive.

“It was unfortunate that the summer unfolded publicly the way it did with some of the supporters’ groups. I tried to answer some of their concerns to the best of our ability.”

2019-08-21T06:48:13.110Z

Arsenal and Manchester United will fight it out for talented teenager Eduardo Camavinga this January, according to reports.

Tottenham and Manchester City are also interested in the 16-year-old after the midfielder helped Rennes to a 2-1 win over Ligue 1 champions PSG on Sunday night, according to the Daily Mail.

2019-08-21T06:44:23.893Z

Former Juventus favourite Claudio Marchisio has said that he turned down a move to Chinse Super League side Jiangsu because of their links to Inter Milan.

The midfielder has been looking for a new club but has said he couldn’t contemplate playing for a club with such ties to Juve’s rivals.

“I refused the proposal of Jiangsu Suning,” he confirmed to Sky Italy.

“Was it influenced by the fact that they are linked to Inter? Of course, it was a factor. The link to that shirt wouldn’t allow me to make that choice in good conscience.

“Japan or Arabia? We will need to see what the future holds. I couldn’t wear any other shirt in Italy after Juventus, so I can say that I will only be considering offers from abroad.

“I appreciate the interest, I have received so many messages, but I want to be logical. Could I return to Juventus? No, I made that decision a year ago.”

2019-08-21T06:42:11.700Z

Arsenal are planning to go big again.

Club director Josh Kroenke has promised that Arsenal will continue to be “proactive” in the transfer market following a landmark summer window which saw them spend over £100m on the likes of Nicolas Pépé, Dani Ceballos, David Luiz, Kieran Tierney and Gabriel Martinelli.

In a new interview, the American has said that he is determined for the club to win back their place in the Champions League and is willing to again spend back to make it happen. “We weren’t reactive this summer, we were actually proactive,” he told the BBC. “As for January, I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves.

“We’ve got to evaluate some things in the short term and figure out where we might need to address going forward, so when January does roll around we’re going to be proactive again.”

But, having already bolstered their squad this summer, which players could Arsenal move for in the winter market as they continue their drive to ‘proactively’ improve Unai Emery’s team?

2019-08-21T06:38:08.410Z

Tottenham midfielder Victor Wanyama, 28, could be jumping across the Channel after West Ham failed to sign him before the closure of the English transfer window.

Belgian side Bruges are considering securing the £18million-rated Kenya international before the European window shuts on September 2, the Daily Express says.

2019-08-21T06:32:53.920Z

Danish Superliga’s Nordsjaelland have made Liverpool an offer for talented young striker Bobby Duncan, the Daily Mail reports.

The 18-year-old was included in Reds manager Jurgen Klopp’s pre-season plans. But the Danish club have offered him regular football and are willing to pay his wages in full for the upcoming season.

Duncan, who is Steven Gerrard’s cousin, scored 32 goals for the Liverpool academy last year following his arrival from Manchester City the season before.

2019-08-21T06:32:03.090Z

Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of today’s transfer news and rumours.

Transfer deadlines:

Italy’s Serie A is the next big transfer deadline. The Italian window shuts on 23 August.

The transfer window in La Liga, the Bundesliga and Ligue 1 meanwhile shuts on 2 September.

For a comprehensive review of the English transfer window: click here.

Source link . More news

via wordpress https://ift.tt/2P8lA8l

#Gossip #Arsenal #Barcelona #Bundesliga #Christian Eriksen #Football #Football transfers #La Liga #Li

0 notes

tipsoctopus · 6 years

Text

"That's Lawwell's next bonus sorted" - Loads of Celtic fans react to stunning report

Loads of Celtic fans have been reacting to a stunning report on the departure of Brendan Rodgers, as the compensation fee paid to the Bhoys has been revealed.

Celtic fans were understandably fuming when Rodgers departed mid-season, leaving the club to join Premier League outfit Leicester City.

Of course, the English top flight is the pinnacle of club football to many, but it was the timing of the Foxes boss’ departure that really infuriated fans.

Their frustrations may be eased somewhat now though, as a report from The Telegraph has revealed that the Hoops received a £9m fee for Rodgers and his backroom staff.

To put that in perspective, the report claims Everton paid just £4m to Watford to bring Marco Silva to Goodison Park.

Things haven’t been going too badly since Rodgers’ departure either, as even despite a disappointing draw with Aberdeen, Neil Lennon’s side need just five points from their final four games to guarantee an eight consecutive title.

Fans have got plenty to say about the compensation fee too, with some suggesting they use it to sign Filip Benkovic while others fear the prospect of the club refusing to reinvest the cash into the squad.

Either way, you can find some of the best Twitter reactions down below…

Should have just swapped him for benkovic

— Thomas (@Thomas30872098) March 14, 2019

The irony is that our ex-manager claimed a transfer fee greater than the ‘best striker in Scotland’ will achieve, despite the Scottish media narrative.

— Bryan (@BryanMcLaren) March 14, 2019

Use this to make Benkovic move permanent and we still have enough to make Burke move permanent also

— Barry Nixon (@barrynixon1980) March 14, 2019

That’s Boyata’s wasted transfer fee covered then ??

— Barry Cole (@BazCole91) March 14, 2019

That’s Lawwell’s next bonus sorted.

— ? Fergus 1916 ?? (@fergus1916) March 14, 2019

That’s that useless Lawell again making us cash

— George R (@geobhoy67) March 15, 2019

And I bet lennon or whoever the manager is won’t see a penny and the board get a fat bonus

— Paul hallford (@Paulhallford1) March 15, 2019

Git the full lot put towards a manager of the same caliber???

— Dom Schiavone (@Shiv1888) March 14, 2019

from FootballFanCast.com https://ift.tt/2TcheKa via IFTTT from Blogger https://ift.tt/2ufa4dT via IFTTT

#FootballFanCast.com

0 notes

stickyyouthstudent · 6 years

Text

No 10 rejects Brown's warning about world being at risk of 'sleepwalking' into new financial crisis - Politics live

Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including the publication of the latest batch of government no deal Brexit planning papers

Dominic Raab’s Today interview - Summary

12.32pm BST

In an interview with the Guardian, the former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown said that the world was in danger of “sleepwalking in a future [financial] crisis” because there is not enough cooperation between governments and central banks globally. My colleague Larry Elliott wrote it up here.

Related: 'The world is sleepwalking into a financial crisis' – Gordon Brown

Since 2008 we have built one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world designed specifically to ensure financial stability and protect taxpayers.

We have, obviously, reformed regulation to put in place one of the toughest systems in the world and we have made it easier to deal with any issues that emerge on the banking front.

12.24pm BST

The Daily Mail has backed Theresa May’s plans for a soft Brexit and described Conservative MPs plotting to oust the prime minister during the negotiations with the EU as “traitors”, my colleague Jim Waterson reports.

Related: Daily Mail backs May's Brexit plan and brands rebel Tories 'traitors'

12.05pm BST

The European commission has responded to the UK government’s claim that, in the event of there being no Brexit deal, it would not pay the EU the £39bn already agreed, the Telegraph’s James Crisp reports.

(It is saying it is not prepared to renegotiate the sum - although in practice, if the withdrawal agreement were to collapse and the EU wanted to recover money owed to Brussels, there would in practice have to be a renegotiation.)

.@EU_Commission responds to @DominicRaab in today's @Telegraph , where Brexit sec said UK would not pay Brexit bill if there is no deal. Spox said: "We will not be revisiting those areas of the Withdrawl Agreement that are now settled , including the financial settlement. " 1/

.@MargSchinas goes onto quote @JunckerEU speech yesterday. "The president said yesterday that we stand ready day and night to reach a deal. .This is something we owe to our citizens and business to ensure UK withdrawal is orderly and there is stability afterwards". 2/

Presumably there would not be much stability if UK refused to pay bill, which EC has always argued represents a settling of accounts (money owed) before leaving. Other Q's in play is whether UK would be legally liable or not.. ENDS

11.56am BST

In the Commons George Eustice, the fisheries minister, is making a statement about the scallop dispute with the French. He told MPs that the negotiations intended to resolve the dispute had failed.

Related: Talks to end 'scallop wars' between UK and France collapse

11.33am BST

Downing Street has confirmed that the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, attended today’s special no-deal Brexit cabinet meeting, after he was spotted at No 10.

The Canadian, who has just extended his term for six months to provide some stability over the departure period, was at the meeting for the first half an hour, to update ministers on the bank’s plans, Theresa May’s spokeswoman said.

11.24am BST

Here is Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP and chair of the Commons home affairs committee, on the Home Office’s decision not to introduce protest-free buffer zones outside abortion clinics. She said:

This is a very disappointing response from the home secretary.

The whole point of having this review was because existing powers are not working or are proving cumbersome and difficult for councils or the police to use.

11.01am BST

The Home Office has rejected calls for buffer zones to be introduced outside abortion clinics across the country. In a written ministerial statement, Sajid Javid, the home secretary, said introducing protest-free areas outside clinics to prevent harassment of patients “would not be a proportionate response��. He went on:

Having considered the evidence of the review, I have therefore reached the conclusion that introducing national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response, considering the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics, and considering that the majority of activities are more passive in nature.

10.31am BST

And here is a full summary of what Dominic Raab told the Today programme, including lines from the interview not already mentioned.

It’s not a threat, it’s statement of fact as part of our no-deal planning that, yes, we would be mindful of our strict legal obligations, but the amount and the phased way it is set out in the withdrawal agreement would fall away because there would be no deal.

It’s not a threat and it’s not an ultimatum, it’s a statement of fact. I don’t say anything outside of the negotiation room that I haven’t and wouldn’t directly to our EU friends and partners, and I think it is well understood on both sides.

The reality of the ERG proposals, and the approach of saying we would accept the EU’s offer of a Canada deal, is not to look at the small print. The EU is offering in relation to the Ceta [Canada-EU trade deal] arrangements not just the deal that they have with Canada but a backstop arrangement which for all practical purposes would leave us indefinitely in the customs union. And that’s part of the offer they’ve made. So there isn’t an easy way round this.

In the past months, whenever we needed unity in the Union, Britain was at our side, driven by the same values and principles as all other Europeans. This is why I welcome prime minister May’s proposal to develop an ambitious new partnership for the future, after Brexit. We agree with the statement made in Chequers that the starting point for such a partnership should be a free trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

But we also ask the British government to understand that someone who leaves the union cannot be in the same privileged position as a member state. If you leave the union, you are of course no longer part of our single market, and certainly not only in the parts of it you choose.

We’ve had some good news from businesses like Vodafone and Three. They have publicly said they wouldn’t introduce any roaming fees for UK consumers travelling on the continent.

What we have said is we would like to see other companies following suit, but, in any event, we would legislate for a limit on roaming charges to make sure in a no-deal scenario that we protect British consumers.

9.42am BST

In his Today interview Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, was also asked about the dozens of Conservative MPs who have indicated that they are opposed to Theresa May’s Chequers proposal. He effectively delivered an ultimatum: they would either have to back the Chequers plan, or see the UK leaving the EU without a deal, he said. In other words, it would be “deal or no deal”, to coin a phrase.

When it was put to him that, if May did come back from Brussels with a deal based on her Chequers plan, he replied.

No, I don’t think so. I think we’ll come back with a good deal. I think it will focus minds. And I think colleagues will look at the choices they’ve got and we all have to be responsible for that.

I do appreciate the concerns on all sides ... But when push comes to shove, there will be the choice between the deal that I’m confident we can strike with the EU and the no deal scenario. And we are making sure we are ready for the latter. But I think it would be by far the optimum outcome to have a negotiated deal, and I think that will focus everyone’s minds.

This is the crux of it for the govt - they hope, in the end, that there simply won't be enough MP s who'd risk it - Raab says.... “There will be a binary choice between a deal and no deal and I believe that will focus minds.”

9.23am BST

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, is in Downing Street for this morning’s cabinet meeting about a possible no deal Brexit, according to Steve Back, a photographer who covers Downing Street and who tweets as @PoliticalPics.

Breaking: Mark Carney the Gov of Bank of ENGLAND just been smuggled into back door on No10 to join the Cabinet Brexit meeting in top range electric car made in the USA

9.15am BST

One of the more interesting political developments of the last few years has been the growing rupture between the Conservative party and big business. The Tories used to be effectively the political wing of the CBI, but Brexit has changed that and we saw a relatively small, but nevertheless telling, example of that this morning when Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, criticised John Lewis for saying Brexit was contributing to a collapse in profits.

The company announced a dire first-half profit performance this morning. Sir Charlie Mayfield, its chairman, explained:

These are challenging times in retail. Profits before exceptionals are always lower and more volatile in the first half than the second half. It is especially so this half year, driven mainly by John Lewis & Partners where gross margin has been squeezed in what has been the most promotional market we’ve seen in almost a decade.

With the level of uncertainty facing consumers and the economy, in part due to ongoing Brexit negotiations, forecasting is particularly difficult but we continue to expect full-year profits to be substantially lower than last year for the Partnership as a whole.

Well, I think it’s probably rather easy at this moment in time for any business that isn’t doing rather well to point to Brexit. But let me just give you the facts; this week we’ve had economic growth accelerating, we’ve had real wages accelerating, we’ve had Relx, the Anglo-Dutch business information company, revise its structure to be headquartered in the UK. So, actually, we have got positive news on the economy this week ...

I don’t doubt that some of the uncertainty around these negotiations will have an impact on business. That’s why we are putting all our energy into getting the good deal that we want with our EU friends and partners ... All I’m just gently saying is that it is rather easy for a business to blame Brexit and the politicians rather than to take responsibility for their own situation.

Related: Day-to-day effects of no-deal Brexit stressed in new impact papers

0 notes